My Thoughts on the Movie
by kowaidesuka
Summary: Basically me criticizing the movie. Mostly bashing Columbus and his 'fatal flaws'. Not really a story, and pretty amateur.


**I didn't like the movie, so I wrote this. :P**

**Disclaimer: Don't own the books or the movie.**

Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief: Movie Review

Before the Movie

Let me start by saying that I adore the Percy Jackson series. It's funny, philosophical, and quirky - and that's how it earned a spot on my bookshelf. So when I heard that the genius Rick Riordan, author of the bestselling series, sold the books over to the big-shot Hollywood movie producers, I had to say, I wasn't really excited.

I was THRILLED.

But, sadly, my keyed-upness started to diminish when I received bad news after bad news. Such as the role of Percy being cast off to Logan Lerman, who is SEVENTEEN. I thought, how can a seventeen-year-old play a twelve-year-old? It just didn't make sense. Then I saw Annabeth's role. Alexandria Daddario was rumoured to play her. She was a whopping twenty-three years old. It didn't add up.

Then, more news- Percy's age was moved up, and so was the big prophecy, to suit older audiences. I didn't really make a big deal of it at that time. I thought, okay, so the director made a few minor changes to the book, big deal. It would still be the Percy Jackson you know and love. Right?

Uh, wrong!

More boo-boos started to pop up. Grover being black (I'm not being racist, people. It's just that I didn't picture Grover to be black), Persephone being in the film, no roles given for Clarisse or Mr. D. I realised something- this director must be Catherine Hardwicke! After all, _Twilight_, without the whole special effects and adult theme shebang, would be pretty average. But, it wasn't. Instead, it was Chris Columbus.

A word about Columbus before I go on. He was a famous Spanish explorer who sailed across the Atlantic on three ships called-

Woops. Wrong Columbus.

Chris Columbus (the director) is an okay director. But the movies that he done that were based on books, could've been done better. For example, Harry Potter and the Philoso-pher's Stone. It was a good film that had sold millions, but the lack of details and relation to the book, was saddening to me. It was also too fast-paced to me. Then there was HP#2. It was tip-top on the detail front, but still quite fast-paced, and the dialogue was a little dull. The action, however, was great, but that was what attracted the crowds. I soon learned later that book details were Columbus's "fatal flaw".

I then saw the trailer for Percy Jackson. Several of them. And I could already spot mistakes in it. Firstly, Mount Olympus. It looked like a shorter, fatter, gloomy version of Hogwarts. Not Greek at all. No ambrosia on a stick, no singing Muses, no statues or fountains or anything. Secondly, one of the trailers said that "demigods have superpowers". That got me burning like I just gulped down a mug of nectar. Demigods do not have "superpowers", okay? They acquire neat tricks and quirks from the god side of their heritage. If you're referring to their incredible sword-fighting, that is from camp training. And you can't just advertise a movie implying that being a half-blood is awesome, because you get special powers. Being a half-blood is difficult and gets you killed. I should know. I am one (just kidding).

And the movie posters featuring Percy (I didn't see it as Percy, actually. I saw it as a foolish teen who didn't know what the Hades he was doing), call me paranoid, reminded me of the HP movie posters. I'm sorry, Mr. Columbus, but the Percy Jackson world isn't some Harry Potter duplicate universe where you can slap your new ideas on.

Then I saw the actual movie.

After The Movie (if you could call it that. I just call it an excuse to get out and waste 20 bucks)

As stirred-up as a minotaur, I left the movie theatre, furious. Yes, it didn't meet my expectations. No, I wouldn't move on until I did something about it. So that's why I wrote this-

Differences between movie and book:

-Missing characters that were very significant, but not in Columbus's eyes apparently. Clarisse was very important to Percy's realisation that he was a half-blood, i.e. the toilet incident. Mr. D/Dionysus was also a key role in not only the first book, but the series as a whole. Thalia wasn't really a character in the first book, but she was still important. She was mentioned in Annabeth's back story, which wasn't included in the movie. How will she fit in the third book, Columbus?

-No cabins. What. The. Hades? They're supposed to rough out in tents? Apparently, yes, with only Percy receiving the royal treatment. This wouldn't have been so bad if it wasn't for the blissful time period between when Percy was undetermined and determined. That was very vital, even though it might seem like a minor detail.

-A completely different plot, with Percy and his gang looking for pearls instead of the lightning bolt, and later, the helm of darkness (no helm, either). Sure, pearls were mentioned in the book, but it was easy to get those. They shouldn't worry about silly pearls. They should worry about the bolt.

-Grover being a suave ladies' man. Um, excuse me? Grover should be portrayed as nervous, kind and a little scary at times. The only time he lost his cool was near Persephone.

-That's another thing: Persephone shouldn't even be in the movie. Neither should Athena or Hermes, for that matter.

-Chiron's horse coat being brown instead of white. In the novel "The Lightning Thief", There was a quote about Chiron's appearance- _"His blanket fell away from his legs, but the legs didn't move. His waist kept getting longer, rising above his belt. At first, I thought he was wearing very long, white velvet underwear, but as he kept rising out of the chair, I realised that the velvet underwear wasn't underwear; it was the front of an animal, muscle and sinew under coarse white fur."_ Now, you may not think that this is an important fact, but it was another trick of the Mist, thinking that Chiron had weird taste in underwear at first, then realising that he was a centaur. The Mist is vital to the book series.

-There was also no Mist. At least, as far as I'm concerned. There were conveniently no humans during the battle scenes. Too coincidental.

-Where was Kronos? Kronos was also an important element in the book. What, you couldn't find anyone evil enough to do him? There was only one mention of the Crooked One. That was it. Luke did all those nasty things because of his OWN hatred. What a rip-off. It would have been much more successful with an evil voice as Kronos.

However, there were some excellent battle scenes. And since I'm team Percabeth (Percy/Annabeth), the witty banter between them made me squeal. And Hades was quite awesome as well.

But there is something definitely wrong with Columbus. He probably just flipped through a few random pages and got these thoughts back: _Hmmm... Well, Percy is a twelve-year-old... that won't be good for profits... let's age him up to seventeen! And he clearly has a crush on Annabeth... something for the ladies... Oh, let's not include Clarisse and the wine dude. We probably won't find anyone ugly enough to play them. And the cabins... well, I certainly won't build them. Money is essential, peoples!!!!_

Yeah. Something along the lines of that. In fact, I think he only wanted to do the movies because of the word "half-blood". He's clearly still reminiscing about Harry Potter and his blue (guess contacts are Dan Radcliffe's fatal flaw. But that's another story. ;]) eyes.

So, I guess I'm saying that for a movie, it was cool, but for a movie based on a beloved book series, not so great. Especially for a PJObsessive like me.

This is my final summary for my thoughts on the movie-

EPIC battle scenes + FAIL plot = EPIC FAIL.

P.S. I've got something to say to you, Columbus. _Erres es korakas! _(which means 'go to the crows', as mentioned in _The Lightning Thief_. Not that you'd know).


End file.
